IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PUNE AT PUNE. Regular complaint Case No of Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, }

Transcription

1

2 1 IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PUNE AT PUNE Regular complaint Case No of 2011 Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, } Kalpataru Point, 3 rd Floor, } Sion-Matunga Scheme Road No.8, } Opp.Cine Max Cinema, Sion(East), } Mumbai } (Represented by Shri P.K. Mirashe, } The Regional Officer, } Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, } Pune, having his office at Jog Center, 3 rd Floor, } S.No.21/5, F.P. No.28, Shivajinagar, } Wakdewadi, Pune-Mumbai Road, Pune ) } Complainant v/s 1) Hincon House, 247 Park, LBS Marg, } Vikhroli (West), Mumbai } (Summons to be served upon } Shri Ajit Gulabchand, Age about Adult Occupation Business } Chairman, } Hincon House, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, } Vikhroli (West), Mumbai } 2) Shri Ambuj Jain, Age about Adult Occupation Service } Project Controller, } Town Hall Dasave, Tal: Mulshi, }

3 2 Dist: Pune. } 3) Shri S.P. Pendharkar, Age about Adult Occupation Service } Chief Planner, } Viola Business Center, } D-Building, S.No. 118, Katraj-Dehu Bypass, } Warje, Pune } 4) Shri S. Narayan, Age about Adult } Occupation Service } Chief Operating Officer, } Viola Business Center, } D Building, S.No. 118, Katraj-Dehu Bypass, } Warje, Pune } } 5) Shri Krunal Negandhi, Age about Adult } Occupation Service } Asstt.V.P. (Environment), } Town Hall Dasave, Tal: Mulshi, } Dist: Pune. } 6) Dr.Dyandeo B. Ghorpade, } Age about Adult } Occupation Service } AVP (Env. Operation), } Having his address at Town Hall Dasave, }

4 3 Tal: Mulshi,Dist: Pune. } 7) Shri Aniruddha Deshpande, } Age about Adult } Occupation Business } Director } Having his address at Viola Business Center} D-Building, Katraj Dehu Road Bye-Pass, } Warje, Pune } 8) Mrs.Anuradha Jitendra Desai, } Age about Adult } Occupation Business } Director } Venkatesh Farm, S.No.95/1, N.D.A. Road, } Mauje Village:Warje, Tal: Haveli, Dist:Pune } 9) Shri Vithal Maniyar, Age about Adult } Occupation Business } Director } Having his address at 227, Nana Peth, } Pune-02. } 10) Shri Gautam Thapar, Age about Adult } Occupation Business } Director } Having his address at } E-16, Pushpanjali Farm, Brijwasan, }

5 4 New Delhi-62. } 11) Shri S.K. Khandelwal, Age about Adult } Occupation Service } Hincon House, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, } Vikhroli (West), Mumbai } 12) Ms.Shalaka Gulabchand Dhawan, } Age about Adult } Occupation Business } Director } Hincon House, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, } Vikhroli (West), Mumbai } 13) Shri K.G. Tendulkar, Age about Adult } Occupation Service } Hincon House, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, } Vikhroli (West), Mumbai } 14) Shri S.K. Dharmadhikari, Age about Adult } Occupation Service } Hincon House, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, } Vikhroli (West), Mumbai } 15) Shri Sharad M. Kulkarni, Age about Adult } Occupation Service } Hincon House, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, } Vikhroli (West), Mumbai } Accused

6 5 MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR Complaint Under Section 15,16 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with the then Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 1994, as amended on 7/7/2004 and the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, The Complainant above named begs to submit as under: (1) The Complainant is the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (Hereinafter referred to as the Board for the sake of brevity), constituted under Section 4 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and shall be deemed to be the State Board for the prevention & control of air pollution constituted under Section 5 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 respectively. The Board shall be a Body Corporate, having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to sue or to be sued. The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board has been constituted under the provisions of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and shall be deemed to be the State Board for the prevention, control & abatement of air pollution in the State of Maharashtra. The Board is further responsible for the implementation of the various provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Rules made thereunder by the Central Government from time to time including the implementation of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification/s issued by the Central Government under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, The Complainant craves leave to refer to & rely upon the said Environmental Laws whenever required alongwith the applicability thereof to the State of Maharashtra. (2) The Complainant-Board is represented by Shri P.K. Mirashe, who is working as a Regional Officer of the Complainant-Board at Pune and

7 6 Incharge Officer for the implementation of the provisions of the various Environmental Laws including the implementation of the then EIA Notification, 1994, as amended on 7/7/2004 as well as the present EIA Notification, He is a Public Servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code as per the provisions contained u/s 50 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Section 44 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and u/s 21 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Rules made thereunder. The complainant further states that the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India by his letter dtd.10/6/2011 has directed to initiate necessary action under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 in respect of the violations made by the Accused by carrying out the constructions/developments without obtaining prior Environmental Clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006 for the development of Hill Station Township (First Phase-2000 ha.) as observed by the Committee headed by Shri Naresh Dayal, during the process of appraisal and also based on the site visit by the Committee headed by him, which had found that the constructions/developments in 681 ha. area was in progress without obtaining prior Environmental Clearance under EIA Notification, A copy of the said letter dtd.10/6/2011 is enclosed herewith and marked as an Annexure- I. The Complainant further states that the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India has imposed pre-condition on the Accused No.1 in respect of initiating credible action on the violations of EIA Notification, 2006 prior to issuance of the Environment Clearance to the First Phase of Hill Station Township Project (2000 ha.), making it clear that the final decision on the Environment Clearance cannot be taken till all preconditions imposed in the letter dtd.13/10/2011 are met. A copy of the said letter dtd.13/10/2011 alongwith Committee s Report is enclosed and marked as an Annexure- II.

8 7 Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Mumbai in the Writ Petition No.7276/2011 while passing order dtd.20/10/2011 observed that the time of 3 weeks granted by the Hon ble High Court for passing final order on the application of the Petitioner dtd.7/2/2011 shall not be extended in any circumstances, when, the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India pointed out that for want of fulfillment of pre-conditions by the Petitioners including the credible action to be taken by the State Government of Maharashtra, the final decision on the Environmental Clearance was not taken by it. Therefore, it was observed that the Learned Special Counsel for the State has made a statement that the necessary action will be initiated against the Petitioners for violation of the provisions of the Act within a period of 2 weeks and the application of the Petitioners dtd.7/2/2011 shall be reconsidered afresh in the light of these changed circumstances, and final order either rejecting or allowing the application of the Petitioners dtd.7/2/2011, shall be passed in accordance with the Law & Procedure applicable in this regard within a period of 3 weeks from the date of order. A copy of the said order dtd.20/10/2011 is enclosed herewith and marked as an Annexure- III. The complainant further submits that as per S.O. No.394 (E) dtd.16/4/1987 and further amended from time to time total 12 Authorities and Officers listed in Column(2) of the Table authorized for the purpose of taking cognizance of the offence/s under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 including any Director, Joint Director, Advisor or Additional Secretary to the Govt. of India in the Department of Environment, Forests, and Wild Life. The present violation is in respect of not obtaining the Environment Clearance under the provisions of EIA Notification, The role of the Board in respect of such Notification is limited to conduct public hearing and submit report on public hearing to the Competent Authorities (MoEF, GoI / State Government) and for monitoring the compliance of the EIA Notification, the Zonal Officer at Bhopal has been empowered by the Central Pollution Control Board.

9 8 However, in the present case, since the MoEF,GoI directed the Secretary, Environment Deptt., Govt. of Maharashtra to initiate credible action against the Accused No.1 as per letter dtd.10/6/2011 and in view of further communication received from the Secretary, Environment Deptt., Govt. of Maharashtra dtd.1/11/2011, the complainant has filed this complaint as per Authorisation granted to the Regional Officer of the State Pollution Control Board to take cognizance of offences within his jurisdiction at the instance of the MoEF, GoI. Copies of S.O. No.394 (E) dtd.16/4/1987 and the communication dtd.1/11/2011 received from the Secretary, Environment Deptt., Govt. of Maharashtra rare enclosed herewith and marked as the Annexures- IV & V respectively. (3) The Complainant further states that the Accused No.1 is a Hill Station Township, being built across 12,500 acres amidst the majesty of the Sahyadri Mountains along the contours of the Warasgaon Lake, stated to be the first and largest Hill City conceptualized in post independence India. The company having its present registered office at Hincon House, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai and having its site and site office at Town Hall, Portofino Street, At Post Dasve Lavasa, Tal: Mulshi, Dist: Pune The Accused NO.1 is represented by the Chairman of the Company. The Accused Nos.2 to 6 are the officers incharge of and responsible for day-to-day affairs of the Company and its business. The Accused Nos.7 was the Director of Accused No.1 Company at the time of the initial stage of the Accused- Company as per the Annual Report for the period available on the website ( of the Accused No.1. The Accused Nos.8 to 15 are the Directors of the Accused No.1-Company. The Accused Nos.7 to 12 were shown as the Non-Executive Directors including Shri Ajit Gulabchand for Accused No.1 in the Annual Report The Complainant by his letter dtd.13/09/2010 called upon the Accused No.1 to make available the information in respect of the

10 9 compliance of the then EIA Notification, 1994 as amended on 7/7/2004 and the present EIA Notification, 2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 including the details of the Developer and Promoter of the Project. The Accused No.1 through Accused No.3 had submitted certain information vide letter dtd.9/11/2010 in respect of the compliance of EIA Notifications, stating that M/s.Lavasa Corporation Ltd., which is a group of company of M/s.Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. is the Promoter of the Project and some of the plot owners and customers are carrying out construction work by themselves. Plinth of 2 Villas, Portofino Apartment, Akant Lodge and Town Hall completed prior to 7/7/2004, however, no Plinth Completion Certificate was obtained from the competent Authority and produced before the Authority. Therefore the Regional Officer, MPCB, Pune issued the letter dtd.13/09/2010 to the Accused No.1 and reply thereto given by the Accused No.1 dtd.9/11/2010 are enclosed herewith and marked as an Annexure- VII & VIII respectively. The complainant therefore submits that since the Accused No.1 and other officials incharge for day-to-day affairs have not communicated the names & designations of the persons directly incharge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, the Regional Officer of the Board at Pune has no alternative than to find out the names & designations of such persons from the perusal of the only Annual Reports for the period and available on the website of Accused No.1 and after due inquiry with concerned Departments and office record available with him. The Annual Report for the period shows the names of Non-Executive Directors including Chairman of the Accused No.1. However, the Annual Report for the year, just showing the names of Chairman and other Board of Directors without mentioning anything about the functioning of such Board of Directors (Executive

11 10 /Non-Executive). Therefore, the authenticity about the role of the Board of Directors in respect of the Executive/Non-Executive status is not clear. However, on the basis of the information available with the Board, the Board of Directors have been made Accused in the present case for not obtaining the necessary Environment Clearance/s as per the provisions contained in the then EIA Notification, 1994, as amended on 7/7/2004 and the present EIA Notification, 2006, as per the directives issued by the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India by its letter dtd.10/6/2011 and in pursuance of the order dtd.20/10/2011 passed by the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Mumbai in the Writ Petition No.7276/2011, communicated by the Secretary, Environment Department, Govt. of Maharashtra vide letter dtd.1/11/2011. The complainant by his letter dtd.29/07/2011 communicated the present status of the project and pointed out that in spite of specific communications from the Regional Office-Pune dtd.14/06/2011 and 8/07/2011, the project proponent has not communicated the names & office addresses of the officers responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the Accused-Company and reluctant to provide the desired information. He has also pointed out that one Notice u/s 19 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 has been received from the Shri Santosh Daundkar, in which, present Directors and previous Directors names are mentioned. After going through the record available in his office and information gathered from various sources, he has sent the names, designations and addresses of the officers responsible for the activities of the Accused No.1 by his letter dtd.29/07/2011. A copy of the said letter dtd.29/07/2011 alongwith enclosures is enclosed herewith and marked as an Annexure- VIII. (4) The Complaint is filed on the following grounds mainly on the basis of the directions issued by the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India to the State Government to initiate credible action by its letter

12 11 dtd.10/6/2011 and further directions issued by the Secretary, Environment Deptt., Govt. of Maharashtra on the basis of the said directions and order dtd.20/10/2011 to the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board to initiate credible action against the Accused No.1 : (a) The Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India by its letter dtd.25/11/2010 issued show cause notice u/s 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for violation of the provisions of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 1994, as amended in 2004 and as replaced in 2006 to the Accused No.1, calling upon it to show cause as to why the unauthorized structures erected without any Environment Clearance between 18/3/2004 till 7/7/2004, from 7/7/2004 till 14/09/2006 under EIA Notification, 1994 and further constructions carried out after the EIA Notification, 2006 be removed and pending the show cause notice, the status-quo ante for construction / development as on date should be maintained. The Accused replied to the said show cause notice without giving sufficient reasons. Copies of show cause notice dtd.25/11/2010 and reply thereto dtd.28/11/2010 are enclosed herewith and marked as Annexures - IX & X respectively. (b) The Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India by letter dtd.17/01/2011 issued final order u/s 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and further directed that the order of status-quo be continued and reiterated that no construction activity shall be undertaken. A copy of the said order dtd.17/01/2011 is enclosed herewith and marked as an Annexure- XI. (c) The Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India by its letter dtd.13/10/2011 communicated to the Accused that the pre-condition on the credible action on violation of EIA Notification, 2006 has not been complied with, the Ministry is unable to issue the Environment Clearance to the First Phase of Hill City Project (2000 ha.). The final

13 12 decision on the Environment Clearance cannot be taken till all the preconditions are met. (d) The Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India on the basis of the process of appraisal and on the basis of the site visit by the Committee headed by Shri Naresh Dayal found that the constructions / developments in 681 ha. area was in progress without obtaining prior Environment Clearance under EIA Notification in spite of show cause notice dtd.25/11/2010 and final directions dtd.17/1/2011. The Complainant crave leave to refer to & rely upon the Committee Report and various other Reports and correspondence made by the MoEF, GoI with the Accused No.1, when produced. (e) Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Mumbai in the Writ Petition No.7276/2011 observed that the time of 3 weeks granted by the Hon ble Court, for passing final order on the application of the Petitioner dtd.7/2/2011 shall not be extended in any circumstances, which order will not prejudice the rights and contentions of the Petitioners. The Learned Special Counsel for the State has made a statement that the necessary action will be initiated against the Petitioners for violation of the provisions of the Act within a period of 2 weeks. The Secretary, Environment Department, Govt. of Maharashtra by her letter dtd.1/11/2011 directed the Board to take credible action against the Accused as per letter dtd.10/6/2011 from the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India and the statement made by the Special Counsel before the Hon ble High court recorded in order dtd.20/10/2011. (f) In the present case, the Accused have failed to obtain prior Environment Clearance as per Entry No.31(New Construction Projects having investment more than Rs.50 crores or proposed discharge of domestic effluent more than 50,000 ltrs. per day or

14 13 proposed human occupancy more than 1000 persons) added to the list of projects requiring Environment Clearance from the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India in compliance of the EIA Notification, 1994, as amended on 7/7/2004, after conducting public hearing on the basis of Environment Impact Assessment Report. The Accused also failed to obtain an Environment Clearance as per the EIA Notification, 2006 for the building and construction activity/project, having built up area more than 20,000 sq.mtrs. constructed after 14/09/2006 and thereby given false information at the time of obtaining consent from the Board. The Accused have thus committed the offence/s punishable as stated above. (5) The following are the specific violations noted by the MoEF, GoI. (a) The Accused in violation of (i) the EIA Notification, 1994; (ii) the EIA Notification, as amended in 2004; and (iii) the EIA Notification, 2006 carried out unauthroised construction activity and also causing environmental damage. (b) The construction has been made above 1000 mtrs. and as per the Collector, Pune s Report ha. of land area is above 1000 mtrs. (c) The Accused had incurred an expenditure of Rs crores out of total project cost of Rs crores, which amount to about 5.33% of the total cost and as such requires an Environment Clearance from the MoEF, GoI, as per the then EIA Notification, 1994, as amended on 7/7/2004 and the EIA Notification dtd.14/09/2006. (d) The changes may have been made in the project during the First Phase of the development starting from 18/03/2004 onwards and also the construction made after EIA Notification, The unauthorised structures erected without Environment Clearance between 18/03/2004 till 7/7/2004, from 7/7/2004 till 13/09/2006

15 14 under the then EIA Notification Amendment of 2004 and under EIA Notification, (e) The Accused have not complied with a number of pre-conditions stipulated in the order dtd.13/10/2011. (f) The Accused through Accused No.3 given the details of project undertaken during 7/7/2004 to 14/09/2006 in their letter dtd.9/11/2010 addressed to the complainant in compliance of the then EIA Notification, 1994 as amended on 7/7/2004 and EIA Notification dtd.14/09/2006 as under : No. Brief details of the structure 1. Fortune Select Dasve 2. Country Club Construction cost in Rs. Crores Proposed effluent generation in m3 per day Proposed occupancy (No.of Persons) Portofino A Convention Centre The Accused have also given the details of cost incurred year wise on construction and development activities after 2005 till date. Sr.No. Year Expenditure on Construction and Development activities in Rs. Lakhs based on audited financial report A copy of the said letter dtd.9/11/2010 is already enclosed as an Annexure-VII. Thus, the Accused have violated the provisions of the then EIA Notification, 1994, the amendment to the then EIA Notification dtd.7/7/2004 and the present EIA Notification dtd.14/09/2006 respectively, which are punishable u/s 15 & 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

16 15 (6) The Accused have thus committed the offence/s & punishable under Section 15 & 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with the then Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 1994 and the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, The offence has been committed w.e.f. 7/7/2004 Amendment to the EIA Notification, 1994 by not obtaining Environment Clearance as per the criteria laid down in the said Amendment for the requirement of Environment Clearance for the construction project at Entry No.31 added to the EIA Notification of 1994 till 13/9/2006 and continued even after applicability of the present EIA Notification dtd.14/09/2006 by not obtaining Environment Clearance for the building construction and development of more than 20,000 sq.mtrs. after 14/09/2006. The offence has been committed within the jurisdiction of this Hon ble Court ( at Dasave, Tq. Mulshi, Dist.: Pune ). All cases under various Environmental Laws in Pune District are being filed before this Hon ble Court, having jurisdiction to try all criminal cases throughout Pune District. (7) The Complainant therefore prays that the process may kindly be issued against all the Accused under Section 15 & 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with the then Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 1994 and the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, Filed on : /11/2011 For Complainant Board, Advocate for Complainant. ( P. K. Mirashe ) Regional Officer-Pune List of Witnesses 1) Shri P.K. Mirashe, Regional Officer-Pune Maharashtra Pollution Control Board 2) Shri P. P. Dhaygude Sub-Regional Officer-Pune-II Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

17 16 Pune 3) Bharat Bhushan Director, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, Lodi Road New Delhi ) Ms. Nalini Bhat, Adviser Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, Lodi Road New Delhi ) P.L.Ahuja Rai Director, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, Lodi Road New Delhi ) District Collector, Pune 7) Any other witnesses with the prior permission of the court at the time of hearing.

18 17 LIST OF DOCUMENTS SR NO PARTICULARS ANNEXURE 01 Letter received from Ministry of Environment &Forests, Govt. of India dtd. 10/06/2011 Annex I 02 Letter received from Ministry of Environment &Forests, Govt. of India dtd. 13/10/2011 alongwith Committee s report Annex II 03 A Copy of the High Court Order dtd. 20/10/2011 Annex III 04 Copies of S.O No.394 (E) dtd.16/04/1987 and Communication received from Secretary, Environment Deptt., Govt. of Maharashtra dtd 01/11/ Copies of the letter dtd 13/09/2010 issued by the Regional Officer, MPCB, Pune & reply thereto dated 9/11/ Letter dtd.29/07/2011 issued by the Regional Officer, MPCB, Pune alongwith enclosures 06 Copies of show cause notice dt. 25/11/2010 issued by MOEF,GOI and reply dtd. 28/11/2010 received from M/s Lavasa Corporation Ltd. 07 A copy of Show Cause Notice dtd 17/01/2011 issued by MOEF,GOI. Annex IV & V Annex - VI & VII Annex-VIII Annex IX & X Annex XI